Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent, having embraced Buddhism, remained eligible to contest a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and whether such conversion amounted to ceasing to profess the Hindu religion.
Analysis: The controlling requirement under paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was that a person must profess the Hindu or Sikh religion to be treated as a member of a Scheduled Caste. The Court held that the word "professes" refers to an open and public declaration of religious belief, and that where a person publicly declares that he has ceased to belong to Hinduism and embraced another religion, the inquiry does not stop at the formal efficacy of the rite. On the evidence, the respondent's conversion to Buddhism was established, and Buddhism was treated as a religion different from Hinduism for the purposes of the Order. Article 25 of the Constitution of India did not enlarge the word "Hindu" in paragraph 3 so as to include Buddhists.
Conclusion: The respondent had ceased to be a Hindu and was ineligible to contest from the reserved constituency; the election was rightly set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who has publicly embraced Buddhism ceases to profess the Hindu religion for the purpose of paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and is thereby disqualified from being treated as a member of a Scheduled Caste for reservation purposes.